CHARGE EXCHANGE SCATTERING OF

NEGATIVE PI-MESONS NEAR 1000 MEV

by

RICHARD KUMEO YAMAMOTO

B.S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology

( 1957 )

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF HE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

at the

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

( 1963 )

Signature of Author,' -

Certified by -------

-- -------- ---- - - - - - - - -- --- ------ ----

jtpartment of Physics, May 20,1963

Thesis super------------------------------isorThesis supervisor

Chairman. Depagm) t Committee on Graduate Students

_1_1 _i

I 1YI,-ii --i -tI

;ss ~iLS ~ '"' '~r-)k

Llrvrl ~L i

IIIBRAR I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4

INTRODUCTION 5

I. APPARATUS AND EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP 7

A. BUBBLE CHAMBER LIQUID 7

B. INCIDENT BEAM 8

II. SCANNING AND MEASURING 11

A. SCANNING PROCEDURE 11

B. TRACK COUNT 11

0. SCANNING MACHINES 11

D. CHECKING 12

E. SCAN-CHECK EFFICIENCY 13

F. MEASUREMENTS 14

G. GEOMETRY RECONTRUCTION 14

H. SAMPLE 15

III. ANALYSIS 16

A. SIMULATION PROGRAM 16

B. l r AND 3 ;2 PRODUCTIONS 19

C. OPENING ANGLE DISTRIBUTION 20

D. MRTHOD TO OBTAIN ANGULAR DISTRIBUTION 21

E. BISECTOR ANGULAR DISTRIBUTION 23

F. BISECTOR EFFICIENCY 24

G. FINAL BISECTOR DISTRIBUTIONS 25

H. ANGULAR DISTRIBUTION 27

I. TOTAL CROSS-SECTION 28

IV. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 30

A. TOTAL CROSS-SECTIONS 30

B. t' PRODUCTION 52

C. FORWARD SCATTERING 32

D. Df- Fs INTERFERENCE 52

E. CHARGE INDEPEDENCE 33

F. ISOTOPIC-SPIN ASSIGNMENT 54

TABLES

REFERENCES

FIGURES

~ _~

CHARGE EXCHANGE SCATTERING OF

NEGATIVE PI-MESONS NEAR 1000 MEV

by

RICHARD KUEO YAMAMOTO

Submitted to the Department of Physics on May 20, 1963, in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

of Doctor of Philosophy

ABSTRACT

The differential and total cross-section for the charge

exchange reaction: IP--- A/ (I)

and the total cross-sections for the reactions:

r"@ -+7r"* 0-i-7r 0-4- (III)

have been measured at an incident7r laboratory kinetic

energy of 910*5 Mev. The instrument used was a 15" heavy

liquid bubble chamber equipped with a 7" x 1 3/8" dia.

internal liquid hydrogen target. The reactions were pro-

duced in the hydrogen target and gamma rays from7Todecays

were observed in the heavy liquid. The differential cross-

section for the charge-exchange reaction (I) was found to be:

J& as o ± r). () -(.X, -*. 7)X /,ao .)X = C sjo _* .OS-4 X- -(, __ )d 59 C ..o) X -

The total cross-scctions for reactions (I), (II), (III)

were (4.21*0.42), (3.93±0.44), and (0.38-0.27) m.b. respectively.

---------_-_----~LBIIl~ jb ---ii-dl-iPI~iS 31

The differential cross-section for reaction(I) indicates

aD 5/2, F 5/2 interference in the T=- iso"spin state at the

900 Kev 7r-p resonsnce. The total cross-section of reaction

(I) together with the known cross-sections for Trr-p

charged elastic, and rT-p cross sections are found to be

consistent with the charge-independence hypothesis.

Thesis supervisor:

Title:

Irwin A Pless

Associate Professor of Physics

_~_~ ~_~~__ ___ __ __ ___qC_ ;__ ~

ACKN OWLED GEIEN TS

I am greatly indebted to Professor Irwin A. Pless,

who suggested this experiment. I am also greatly indebted to

Professor Lawrence Rosenson who has contributed many ideas to

this experiment. A major part of the analysis technique

ised in this experiment is due to b6th Professors Pless and

Rosenson.

I would like to acknowledge the invaluable help of

%r. Bruce ;,elson and also Mrs. Von Randow and her scanning

team, without whose aeffcient scanning this experiment would

not have been possible.

To Dr. F. Bulos, ir. H.Crouch, Professor R.E. Lanou,

iir. J. \assimo, and'Professor A. Shapiro I acknowledge my

appreciation for their help in setting up the experimental

equipment, making the etposures and analysing the data.

kany thanks are also extended to Mr. C. Bordner,,Professar

A. Brenner, and Dr. E. Ronat of Harvard University for the

use of their computor programs, without which, the data

reduction would have been very difficult to carry out.

I would also like to acknowledge assistance in the early

phases of this experiment by Professor M. Chretien and, Dr.

D. Firth.

ky sincere gratitude is expressed to Brookhaven National

Laboratory and to the Cosmotron group in particular, without

whose efforts and support this experiment would not have been

possib e.

I. ~_--s~-~*Yllur~ lillCkr.

I . INTRODUCTION

In recent years, it has been established that the

total cross-section as a function of energy displays two

distinct peaks at around 600 and 900 Mev incident pion

kinetic energy for the reactions

(V) 1-5and 7r t 7 -t - P

Ir,-P g- 6-.0. A 6

On the other hand, the cross-section for the reaction

7T +P -9 7 +*P (VI)

does not peak at these energies (3,4). These results seem

to indicate a resonant behavior at 600 and 900 Mev of the

pion-nucleon system in the T-, iso-spin state.

The 600 iev peak is believed to be a resonance in

the J=3/2, T= state 7T9 whereas the 900 Mev peak may

10-11possibly be in a state with Ju5/2, T 10-11 However, it

12has been recently suggested by Kycia, et al that the 900

Mev peak may be due to an inteference between the D- 5/2,

T03/2, and F-5/2, T'# wave amplitudes.. The purpose of this

paper is to report on the study of reactior(I) which may

contribute toward the establishment of states involved at

the 900 Mev resonance.

The charge-exchange differential cross-section (I) was

measured by Weinberg, et a113 in a 15" heavy liquid bubble

chamber, with the chamber liquid itself supplying the pro-

tonic target. In order to be certain that there would be no

s~--U~YII-9---~---i

contamination from quasi-elastic interactions, we have

chosen to carry out our measurements in a 15" heavy liquid

chamber, identical to that used by Weinberg, et al, but

equipped with an internal liquid hydrogen target.

This experiment was carried out at the Cosmotron,

Brookhaven National Laboratory, in the fall of 1961.

_ _

Eu- -_ -~ __I__ ______ _ _~_

I. APPARATUS AND EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP

As mentioned before, the i7 -decay gamma ray detector

used in this experiment was a heavy liquid bubble chamber,

with an internal liquid hydrogen target which provided the

target protons. The target is cylindrical (7" length by

1 3/8" diameter) and is encased in a 2" diameter outer cy-

linder which extends into the chamber. (See Fig.I-l). A

Detailed description of this internal hydrogen target will be

given elsewhere 14-15 .The 15" diameter by 14" depth (51

liter capacity) heavy liquid chamber used in this experi-16

ment was identical to that discussed by L. Rosenson and17

J. Szymanski except for provisions to accept the hydrogen

target. All equipment associated with the operation of the16

chamber itself was also identical to those already described

Photographic exposures were made on 35mm. non-perforated

Linograph-Shellburst film under bright field illumination.

Three cameras were situated symmetrically around the peri-

meter of the bubble chamber, allowing for 150 degree stereo

photography with any two cameras. The cameras are discussed18

in detail by Averell

A. BUBBLE CHAVKBER LIQUID

The bubble chamber liquid used in this experiment

consisted of three components: methyl iodide (CH I), freon

B 13 (CF3BR), and ethane (C2 H6 ). The volumetric fractions

used, of each component were 68%, 18%, and 14% respectivly.

'',

*'.,i

is

The proportions of each component were determined by weight,

and the volumetric fractions were then computed using known

densities. The radiation length was then computed to be

9.949 gms/cm2 . The density of this mixture was computed using

the known densities of each component at room temperature.

During the course of heating the chamber from A2 7 C to

#ll-0 C, 6 liters of the liquid were taken out of the chamber

to allow for thermal expansion. Taking into account this

volumetric expansion, we find a liquid density of 1.6f*5%

tem erat u regm/cc. at the operatinr The 5% error on the density is an

estimate of the error in measuring the amount of liquid re-

moved during the heating process.

The gamma ray conversion length, as a function of gamma

ray energy, is related to the radiation length in the follow-

ing way: A(S) X/ti)

=-o. f3O+c 2 /o3,(6) -.OID3CAk(E)]7Z(V11 )

where x, is the radiation length of the bubble chamber liquid

in cm., and E is the energy of the gamma ray, in Mev.

The energy dependent coefficientA(E) was determined for18

this mixture by the use of Averell's computor program which19

carries out a least-squares fit to the Bethe-Heitler formula

in terms of a power series of log (E). The conversion length

as a function of gamma rayA IlSlotted in Fig. 1-2,

B. INCIDENT BEAM -

The "pencil" beam used in this experiment was designed

tb give from 5-15 particles per pulse with a beam cross-

section of ,%" and with incident momentum of 1038-% hiev/c.

~ ~---~ ------ -~--~----c~-~- ~~_~~__

20The details of this beam are discussed elsewhere

The pion beam (See Fig. I-3) was produced by collision

of protons from the Cosmotron's external beam P2 onto a

3/' x 3/8" x 7" carbon target situated in the bending magneto

204. The negative pions produced at 0 with respect to the

target axis were then deflected 290 by magnet 204. Quadru-

poles 205 and 206 were used to focus the beam at the Heavy-

met acceptance slit. The momentum selection was made by

bending magnets 207 and 208. Ivagnet 209 deflected the beam,

allowing photons from 7tdecays to travel in a direction 160

from the beam, reducing the photon background to a negligible

level. The final focus, in the center oflthe beam finger

target, was carried out by quadrupole magnets' 210 and 211.

The beam trajectory was designed by R. Lanou using the21

computor programs of J. S'anford and J. Sandweiss and22

those of R. Pinon and R. Lanou. The beam itself was then

simulated by wire-orbit techniques and properties of the beam

measured by ray tracing.

The muon and electron contamination in the beam have20

been estimated to be 6.7% and 0.2% respectively, by Lanou

The photon contamination is negligible due to bending of the

beam at Magnet 209 as stated above.

During the set-up of the beam, a 2-" freon bubble chamber

was used to locate and study the cross-sectional profile of

the beam. This was done by placing the window plane of the

study chamber at right angles to the beam -- thus directly

_ _~ __ ~~__ ____ _~--~t40crr~hlYLnr

Wool MIN 1 0'

observing the cross-sectional profile of the beam. This23

technique is reported in detail by Bulos, et al

The resulting beam was found to be tightly collimated

with a maximum cross-sectional diameter of .67". A study of

the beam profile in the plane parallel to the bubble chamber

windows has been carried out by the Brown University group

by observing directly on scanning projectors the track distri-

bvtions inpictures. The distribution of the tracks along the

axis perpendicular to the window plne has been obtained by

measuring centers of nuclear stars that occur in the liquid

of the chamber due tO interactions by the beam emerging from

the hydrogen target. Measurements were carried out in three

views and the coordinates of the stars were reconstructed in

space. The distributions obtainedare shown in Fig. I-4hb.

Because the distributions were narrow and the events fell well

within the target, it was not necessary to consider the unfold-

ing of resolution spreads due to measurement errors and mul-

tiple scattering of the beam in the liquid. It is clear from

these distributions that the beam was well centered within the

target. As another check on the position of the beam, 1300

pictures were taken without any hydrogen in the target, and

two pictures contained possible 2( events. These events

were measured and found to have come from interactions in the

chamber liquid , and not the beam finger wall.

10

II. SCANNING.AND MEASURING

A. SCAYNING PROCEDURE -

A total of 98 rolls of film, each containing an average

of 620 exposed frames, were divided into two groups and were

scanned independently by the M.I.T. team and the scanning

team at Brown University. The M.I.T. team was responsible for

the scanning of 48 rolls and the Brown University team for 50

rolls. Scanning by both teams was carried out in the same

fashion. Three views of each picture were looked at simultan-

eously, and all events containing two or more gamm&.:rays ("gamma

rays" will be used to denote the tracks due t6 the converted

positron-electron pairs) pointing towards the beam finger

(hydrogen target) were recorded as possible good events. The

total number of such gamma rays and the number of charged

tracks scattered out of the beam finger by more than ^16e

were recorded along with the picture numbers of each selected

frame.

B. TRACK COUNT -

Throughout the scanning procedure the number of tracks

in every tenth picture frame was reported. The total number

of negative pions encountered in this experiment was found tor

be 3.872 x 105 .

C. SCAN ING MACHINES -

The scanning machines used at M.I.T. consisted of two

sets of three (Model) MPC-1 Recordak 35 mm. film projectors,

11

- "1 *~ -"- I

The Brown University team used one set of Recordak pro-24

jectors and one "Yale" projector. These latter are capable

of driving three rolls of film and because it is possible to

switch from one view to another, they may be operated by a

single scanner to scan the three views at the same time.

D. CHECKING -

Every event selected by the scanners was rechecked and

decided upon by the physicists to determine its category. The

quality of the gamma rays themselves was divided into two types-

"Clean" gamma rays and "CIS" gamma rays. A "clean wamma ray

is defined as one whose point of conversion corresponding to

the origin of the seemingly single track ("nose of gamma ray)

formed by the narrow angle (4 5) vertex of positive-negative

electron pair, is not obscured in more than one view by the

beam finger or is not in the fiducial beam region in more than

one view-- the fiducial region being defined by a band equal

in width to one third the diameter of the beam finger and

with axis corresponding to that of the beam. A "CIS"

(Converts in Steel /Shadow) gamma ray, on the other hand, is

one that is obscured by the finger or falls in the fiducial

beam region in two or three views or one that converts in the

steel wall of the beam finger.

A fiducial chamber volume was defined as the truncated

conical volume formed by the projection, onto the front win-

dow' (as viewed by a camera), of a circle of radius lam.

smaller than that of the rear window and concentric with the

rear window, with major and minor base planes parallel to and

__UIC~

5.8 cm. from the windows, ( Fig.II-1). Any zamma ray that does

not convert in the fiducial volume ~d at least two views is

considered as non-existant. Thus, for examriple, sn event con-

taining three"clean" gamma rays, two of which convert in at

least two fiducial volumes and the third in only one is con-

sidered as a "clean" two gamma ray event.

The intersection points of the "clean" gamma rays were

determined by extending their"noses" with a straight edge on

the projector screen. The intersection points were then checked

for consistency in the three views to determine whether they

were from interactions in the beam finger or accidental inter-

section of two or more unrelated gamma rays, All events with

two or more "clean" gamma rays and with charged tracks scattered

from the beam direction by more than 10* were checked to det-

ermine6whether the charzed track(s) were associated with the

gamma rays. This was accomplished by extending the charged

tracks back into the beam finger to see if they formed a com-

mon interaction point with the gamma rays.

E,. SCAN-CHECK EFFICIENCY -

Thirty rolls of the total ninety eight were scanned twice,

and forty eight rolls were checked twice. The scanning ef-

ficiency of , single scan is defined as the ratio of the num-

ber of identical events found by both scans to the number of

events found by the other scan only. The checking efficiency

is similarly defined -- the ratio of the number of events

selected in common to that selected by the other check only.

I __

The overall scan-check efficiency was then found to be

0.91*0.02. The error is due to statistics only.

F. MEASUREMENTS -

The gamma rays in each selected event were measured on

Hydel measuring machines. Two points, one on the vertex of

the gamma ray "nose" and the other 2.5 cm. back along the

straight edge extension of the gamma "nose" were measured on

each gamma may. The output coordinates in each view consis-

ting of coordinates for the points on each gamma ray and co-

ordinates of fiducial marks on the bubble chamber windows were

automatically punched on IBM cards for data reduction. Each

event was measured twice by a different person.

G. GEOMETRY RECONSTRUCTION -

The measurement data cards were used in conjunction with25

the geometry reconstruction program written by M. Chretien

The results of the geometry program were then used with the

Least-Squares Fitting program, TRKEXT, of C. Bordner, and A.26

Brenner . This program will construct lines passing through

the origin of the "noses" of each gamma ray and will constrain

these directional lines to intersect at a common point. Then

by iterative procedure, the intersection point may be allowed

to move throughout all of space, or, as an alternative mode,

2along a prescribed line, Antil a minimum X2 value is obtained

between the originally measured gamma ray directions (determined

by the two points measured on each extended gamma ray "nose")

and the 'directions resulting from this adjustment.

In order to select the final sample of events, the two

measurements of each event have been treated by allowing the

intersection points to move throughout all of space..Any event

having its intersection points of both measurements falling14

~IL~

inside the hydr6gen target (within their errors) was

accepted for the final sample, 97original events were treated

in this fashion andZ7were accepted. Of the 4 6 events that

were :rejected,J3 were found to be consistent with interactions

of stray pions in the bubble chamber liquid and /Zwere found

to have inconsistent results between the two measurements

due to very badly defined gamma ray "noses".

Both measurements of these selected events were then

treated according to the second mode of fitting, allowing

the intersection point to move along the axis of the beam.2

The measurement displaying the better X value was selected

for use and their gamma rays were Lorentz transformed back

into the 7t-pC.M. System, The opening angle between each

combinatorial pair of gamma rays, and the cosine of their

bisectors, were then determined in this frame of reference.

H. SAMPLE -

The length of the beam finger was divided into three

adjacent sections -- each 5 cm. in length, from 0 to 5 cm.,

5 to 10 cm., and 10 to 15 cm. klong the x axis (See Fig.II-2).

0 corresponds to the geometric center of the bubble chamber.

The events were then divided into three sub-groups accord-

ing to which of the three sections of the tube the inter-

action occurred. The number of events of each type in the

three sections of the tube is tabulated in Table II-1. The

entry called 2 + "CIS" represents the events found in 45

rolls with at least two "clean" gamma rays plus any number

of associated "CIS" gamma rays. This was recorded for the

purpose of internal checking and will be spoken of later in

the text.

IICIIIIIII~- l II1C~*b ll~~~i~.~.-----~1(~111(

III. ANALYSIS

A. SIMULATION PROGRAM -

Because of the highly complicated geometry of the

bubble chamber-target arrangement, it was necessary to

determine the various efficiencies for observing gamma

rays by means of a Monte-Carlo type event simulation pro-

gram. This program, by taking into account the energy

dependence of the gamma ray conversion probability, will

simulate an event and check -to

see if the gamma rays lie within a prescribed fiducial

volume, and also checks to see if the gamma rays are ob-

scured by the beam finger or fiducial beam region. In

particular, it uses a phase-space generating sub-program27

(RDECAY) written by Brenner and Ronat . Thus, the sequential

operation of the simulation program for a single simulated

event is as follows:

1) An interaction point is picked randomly in the

beam finger according to a prescribed beam distribution.

In this problem, a square beam cross-section was used, with

the side of the square equal to 1.70 cm. The distribution

used along the length of the target was uniform.

2) In the case of multiple pion production the momentum

and direction ( in the 7T-p center of mass system ) of the

neutral pions produced are determined by RDECAY, according

to phase-space distributions. In the case of elastic scat-

tering, the momentum of thepis constant and the angular

.~ F~ ---

distribution is determined by any distribution that is fed

into RDECAY.

3) The neutral pion(s) are then allowed to decay.

4) The energy and direction of the pion decay gamma rays

are then Lorentz-transformed into the laboratory system.

5) Each gamma ray is then allowed to convert ccrding to the

exponential law: dP

JRwherek is a function of the gamma ray energy E and is given

by equation (VII) of page8 . R is the distance of the gamma

ray conversion point from the77 decay point.

6) The gamma rays are then viewed by three cameras

to see if they are within the prescribed fiducial volume.

7) The gamma rays that are within the fiducial volume

are then tested to see if they are of the "clean" or "CIS"

category, and are identified as such.

8) The center of mass values of the opening angle and

cosine of the bisector of the opening angle of the combin-

atorially paired gamma rays are then stored for futute read

out.

9) The event is categorized according to the number

of gamma rays that fall outside the fiducial region, the

number that are of the "clean" type and the number of the

"CIS" type.

After a predetermined number of simulated events have

been treated in this way, the probabilities for observing

the various categories of gamma ray conversion modes are

... ~ ~*1OL~u~d 1Sl~llyh I I 11~ e3 IFC~$~~

i-r

_I

given . In the case of elastic scattering, the efficiency

for observing events, as a function of their bisector direc-

tions in the C.M. System, is also given. Histograms of the

various opening angle and bisector directions are also

given by the program.

The probabilities for observing events of the various

conversion modes are shown in Table III-1. The criteria for

accepting events were the same as those used in accepting

events for the actual samples.

The opening angle distributions of the combined 3 and 4

gamma ray observed sample is shown along with the combined 3

and 4 gamma ray sample produced by the simulation program in

Fig. III-1 assuming a phase-space distribution for 21T pro-

duction. The 3 and 4 gamma ray contributions from 31 produc-

tions have been neglected. The distributions for the X, Y,

and Z (See Fig. II-2) coordinates of the gamma conversion

points for the combined 2' , 3Y , and 41 observed samples

are compared with proportional combinations of- the 2 , 3 ,

and 4 Ysamples from the simulated events. These distributions

are shown in Figs.III -la, b and c. It should be pointed out

that since the simulation program approximates the hemis-

pherical end of the beam finger as a straight ends we have

excluded this region from the samples before normalizing.

-. , All comparisons are in substantial agreement and

indications are that the phase-space model accounts for the

multipleT11 momentum distributions.

B. 2 AND 3 r*PRODUCTIONS -

Using the probabilities for the various conversion

modes (Table III-l), and the number of 3 gamma, 4 gamma,and

5 gamma events in the observed sample, we. are able to deter-

mine the number of 2M7 and 317productions. We shall use the

entire sample, from 0 to 15 cm. of the beam finger in order

to increase the statistics.

Taking the number of 5 gamma events observed and the

appropriate gamma ray conversion probability, we find the

number of 3 7P"to be:

l (3 78 5 5The number of events appearing as 4'r, 3 ?', 2+CIS, and

2 ' events due to 3 i decays are then found to be:

S(3;7) = 3.4 t ./

The number of 2 ?7 *events can be determined from the

number of 37events and independently by the number of 44

events. Using a weighted average of the numbers obtained

both ways, we find the number of 2 Thevents to be:

n (21 = s06 . B6Using the number of 2 l7and 3 7 events thus obtained,

the number of 2+ CIS events is predicted to be 329 ' 45.

However, only 44 of the 98 rolls have been scanned for 2

+ CIS events, and by taking this fraction into account,

147 t 22 2+CIS events should be observed in 45 rolls of

film. The number actually observed was 125 ± 11 which is

in good agreement with the predicted number.

19

- ~r*ardYII~L -- I I

C. OPENING ANGLE DISTRIBUTION -

The theoretical opening angle (angle between the decay

gamma rays) distribution of the gamma rays from 7decays is

given by COS (I-)

where 9 is the opening angle and # is the total energy of the

Z*, in units of the 7)1'mass. The distribution (Fig.III 2)

is sharply peaked at the minimum opening angle given by:

The actual distri.bution which should be observed in the

bubble chamber was estimated with the use of the simulation

program. This opening angle distribution was obtained using

a second guess to the charge exchange angular distribution

(this second guess will be spoken of in detail below) and

allowing for a 3aussian resolution function of 2.0 tidth to

be folded into the distribution. This resolution width was

obtained by plotting the difference of the opening angle

values taken from the results of two measurements. If the

error in the opening angle is Gaussian distributed, with

width 'P then it can be shown that this difference dis-

tribution is also Gaussian distributed with its width being

equal toJif.o The opening angle difference distribution is

shown in Fig.III-3. It cannot be fitted by a single Gaussian

curve but a close approximation would be a Gaussian of ',

width.

The observed 2 r0 opening angle distribution is shown in

Fig. III-4. This sample is contaminated by the 2 o events due

-M. - -7

to 2 '?decays, and by a negligible amount due to 3 77*0 de-

cays. The number of events that appear as 2 converted i rays,

due to 2 /Odecays, is given by:

Ar (r)m n (ar PLr) UPi = (8061 86X-c8Z) = 71 8By using the shape of the combined 3 and 4 1 opening angle

distribution and normalizing this distrib*tion to 71 ± 8

events we trb-then able to subtract the background dis-

tribution from the observed 2 i opening angle distribution.

The resulting distribution is shown in Fig. III-5. The dotted

curve represents the opening angle distribution from the

simulated program, normalized to the number of events in the

subtracted distribution between 0 and 85 . This limited

opening angle range for normalization was chosen since any

neutral decays of andAS should show up with minimum open-

ing angle between the decayparays to be about 90 . The exis-

tence of neutral I mesons due to charge exchange in the observed

sample is evident from this comparison. The 29 t 8 residual

2 P ray events beyond 90° opening angle are due chiefly to

the 2 *4 decay mode of the 47 and to a lesser extent to

decays from the neutral decay mode of A , and to an almost

negligibleamount due to decays of/ in the tail of the 2/'

distribution

D. METHOD TO OBTAIN THE ANGULAR DISTRIBUTION -

When a O in motion decays, the actual /# direction

lies between the decay gamma rays and for opening angles near

the minimum opening angle 8 min.' lies very close to the bi-

sector of the opening angle. The angle between the P and

-- -- --- -- ~-.r~uuYYrie~yL

the bisector, e 7. 1., can be represented as a function of the

opening angle by the following relation:

0 S (9 C) 0L-S c77 ve/oc/ly

This function is plotted in Fig. III - 6.

.One can see that most of the time the bisector di-

rection is a very good approximation to the /2 direction

since the opening angle distribution is highly peaked at the

minimum opening angle (at the minimum opening angle, the

bisector and /0directions coincide). Thus, one would

expect the opening angle bisector angular distribution in

the /7 -p C.ivi. System (where thenSj from charge exchange

events are mono-energetic) to be very nearly the same as

the 7) angular distribution. If the &f'angular distribution

is expanded in a Legendre polynomial series

S P A P coS) (Ix)

it can be shown that the opening

angle bisector distribution is given by:

L 0rx k aa

clas ,, .lo (x)

where BL is given by:o

= i PA£. (cps'se.,) coer(e-) C/(C Gs) (XI)

The values for BL for an opening angle limit of 50 and

various /" velocities have been numerically integrated and

are presented in Table 111 2.

I ~YLP~I~YkLI ;_~..~~ I ii ~ -I ~-- pp- I-

The general procedure to obtain the /?angular dis-

tribution is then as follows:

1) Obtain the opening angle bisector distribution in

the l""-p C.N. System for observed 2eevents.

2) Using the results from the simulated program, de-

termine the amount of background events expected from 2)e

(the background contribution due to 3?'is negligible).

3) Normalize the opening angle bisector distributions

of the observed 3 and 4 7 samples to the determined number

expected and subtract from the observed 2 74 bisector dis-

tribution.

4) Correct the number of resulting events as a fune-

tion.of bisector angle by the approximate efficiencies (Table

III-3) for observing the gamma rays giving rise to the bi-

sector.

5) Determine the CL's by means of a least-squares fit

between the corrected data and the Legendre polynomial

series.

6) 'Divide each C1 by the approximate BL to obtain the

expansion coefficients At for the Z* distribution.

E. THE BISECTOR ANGULAR DISTRIBUTION -

For the determination of the bisector angular dis-

tribution we have limited our sample to events having

opening angles between 25 and 50 degrees only, The reason

for this limitation is that, in taking events with wide open-

ing angles, the number of single /2 events gained is not much

-T WPIWMMRM - .

I

F- r _ ~~_ __ ~ ~_~~~_~~r~

more than the number of background events gained. This is

sb since the 7T distribution peaks at 25 degrees and drops oft

very rapidly as the opening angle increases, whereas the

background distribution is very broad.

This limited opening angle sample was then sub-divided

into three groups in accordance with the target region (0-

5, 5-10, 10-15 cm.) in which the interaction occurred. This

was done since the efficiency corrections for the bisectors

are slightly different for these three retjons (See Table III-3).

Each regional sample was then treated independently.

The background distribution was determined by scaling the

bisector distribution of the combined 3 and 4)sample to

the number of background events predicted by the simulation

program results. This distribution was then subtracted from

the observed 2 ) distribution. The resulting distributions

were then corrected by the bisector efficiencies obtaibed

in the manner below.

F. BISECTOR EFFICIENCY -

In reality the bisector efficiency ( the efficiency

for obsarving an event giving rise to a opening argg~gbbeaa t

lying along a given direction) is not independent of the 1T

angular distribution, sincea given bisector polar angle may

correspond to bisectors from decays of 7 's with different

polar angles and necessarily different opening angles. How-

ever, the gamma rays may-be going in various directions and

possess various energies, and it is their conversion pro-

I

__ __ ___

babilities which determine the bisector efficiencies. It

is clear that if only events with the minimum opening angle

are considered, the bisector efficiencies would be independent

of the distribution since, in this case, the 7Tdirection

and bisector directions coincide.

In our case the opening angle range (25-50) is suf-

ficiently small that large deviations in the bisector ef-

ficiencies due to different ITangular distributions a re, not

expected. Table III-3 contains the bisector efficiencies

obtaihed by usingisotropic 1T distribution, (ISO), using

the bisector distribution obtained from the observed 2)sample,

without subtractions or corrections, as a first guess to the

7Tdistribution (B1 1), and finally, using the bisector dis-

tribution obtained from the background subtracted sample

which was corrected by efficiencies froni (B1 1) as the second

guess to the 7T distribution (B1 2). In principle, one could

carry out an iterative procedure of this kind, but it is

clear from these results that after two iterations the bi-

sector efficiencies are identical, within statistics.

G. FINAL BISECTOR DISTRIBUTIONS -

The final bisector distributions in the three regions of

the target are shown in Fig.III-7. These distributions were

obtained using the final bisector efficiencies (BI 2) given

in Table III-3. Any bisector direction with efficiency less

than 0.10 was not considered since the correction necessary

was thoughtto be too large ( approximately four times the

smallest correction made which was 1/0.40). After

correcting the distributions for each region, an average of

the three independent distributions was taken. This final

average is shown in Fig.III-8. The dotted curve in Fig.III-8

represents the corrected bisector distribution obtained by

using the efficiency corrections resulting from the first

guess (BI 1). (See TableIII-3).

One can see that both distributions are in good agreement

as expected. It should be noted that the last cosine inter-

val bin(-1.0 to 0.90) in the extreme backward direction has

a bisector efficiency of 4.10 in all three regions of the

target, and according to 6ur criterion, should not be used.

However, in order to make an estimate of the number of events

expected in this interval, we make the following observation:

no true events in the sample, in any region of the target,

were found to fall in this interval - thus, the best esti-

mate of the number in this bin is O. If we found at most 1

event to fall in this interval, and using the highest ef-

ficiency (0.049), we would expect an error of t( 9 . 7 ). We

therefore estimate the number in this interval to be 0.0

As an internal check, the sum of the events in the

useful cosine interval bins (bins with 6>.10) was com-

pared with the sum of events in the corresponding bins of

the averaged distribution, for each region of the target.

The comparisons are:

_ ______ -"___~ ._.~.111 __~ _ __ _ -~--~-. ~I~-~..-_--. ~__. -~~. ~_ ~.._. __

O - 5 Target region cosine range -1.0 to -0.9

0-64Y 4rNor y5 - 10 Target region cosine range -1.0 to -0.8

10 - 15 Target region cosine range -1.0 to-0.5A4.srw = /76 t 17 A1,'r a gy =r e4e-

We see that the comparisons are in substantial agree-

ment.

H. ANGULAR DISTRIBUTION -

A least-squares fit for the function

1(X)

to the final averaged bisector distribution was carried out2

for . ranging from C to 6. The X probabilities are plotted

as a function of IL in Fig. III-9. We see that at least the

L05 term is necessary in order to obtain a good fit to the

distribution. The solid smooth curve in Fig.III-[O represents

the fit with L15.

The true r ansular distribution for the various fits

are obtained by correcting each polynomial coefficient (C )

by the appropriate correction factor (BL) given in Table III-2.

The true 7tdistribution coefficients are shown in Table

III-4. Also shown in Table III-4 are the coefficients for the

cosine expansions e

for the 5th, and 6th order fits to the final 7 distribution.

The dotted smooth curve in Fig,III-10 represents the &*angular

distribution for L=5.

i__ii______sli__jta~ ~L~3

I. TOTAL CROSSL~SECTION -

The total cross-section corresponding to events is

given by the following expression:

r= Nx 1o" .a N b,PA0 L n ssO 9c)(-)( S-)

N - Total number of events

7 - 0.07 ms/cc - density of liquid hydrogen

AO- 6.02 x 1023 -- Avagadro's number

L - 15.00 - 0.42 cm. - Length of Target (theL-uncetainty

is due to the uncertainty in the reconstruction of the gamma

ray intersection; . I ; - , I

Nw - (3.872 x 105 - Total number of particles

E, - 0.91 * 0.02 - Scan-Check efficiency

/A- 0.067 - Kuon contamination of the beam

e - 0.002 - Electron centamination of the beamo 28

o - 0.0119 - Fraction of ITs decaying by a single Dalitz pjr.

o( is then found to be:

Using the number of 21*and 37"found above, we find

the corresponding total cross-sections to be:

The total cross-section for 37T production is presented

on the basis of only 2 five-gamnma ray events.

The differential cross-section for charge-exchange usinr

R

zR

I""

I

a ---------------------~-~

the results of the 5th order fit is then:

.= oaer 6 c~+(?.. 47LM v30c.± ..4 .L-- (S 03T A .;', .4 (.. ±Z zoj xs &

and the total cross-section is: K=

The 29t8 excess 2/ray events observed in the opening

angle distribution beyond 90 amount to a cross-section of

IV. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

A. TOTAL CROSS-SECTIOINS -

The ratio of t.-e total cross-sections for the reactions:

7r+P- 77r'o+ (I)

and am7*P-7and QP*OVA (II)

found in this experiment is.IG7±4.16) whereas the ratio ob-

served by the group at Saclay i s G. (.*4) . There

seems to be a clear discrepency between the results. However,

the sum of the cross-sections for the above reactions seem to

be in substantial agreement -- (8.1± .6) mb, from this experi-

ment as compared to (10.9*0.9)mb. from the Saclay experiment.

The reason for this slight difference in the sums of the

cross-sections may easily be due to the fact that the cross-

section is rapidly changing (falling) with energy in this

region. The discrepency in the ratio of the cross-sections,

however, cannot be accourted for by this fact. Even if we

assupe our measurement of the bckground due to 371T's to be

low by as much as a factor of two, we obtain a ratio, of

(1.2t0.2), which is still in disagreement with the Saclay

results. It therefore seems that this discrepency cannot be

accounted for by possible uncertainties in the 37 0 contam-

ination.

Another possibility for this discrepency may simply be

due to errors in seperating out the various 77productions, in

either or both of the experimental methods used. In teference

_~ _~~__ _~ I___ ~C~ __~

to this alternate possibility for discrepency, we can speak

only of advantages in our method. They are as follows:

1) The single 77cross-section does not depend strongly

on 2 Pcontamination since our limited opening angle range

( 25 to 50) automaticblly excludes most of this background

and all of that due torlandA 's.

2) The 2 nproduction is determined directly from the

observed number of events having more than two gamma rayS-.thus,

this samole cannot be contaminated by the l hevents.

3) The conversion efficiencies used are results from a

simulation program which allows for several internal checks.

(These internal checks were previously mentioned throughout

the text.)

4) Since we "observe" the gamma rays, we have further

checks between various observed distributions (opening angles;

conversion points etc.), and corresponding distributions pre-

dicted by the simulation program.

5) Because of the strongly peaked characteristic dis-

tribution of the opening angle due to single charge exchange

ob's, we are certain we are dealing with charge exchange events.13

Weinberg, et al , have also measured the cross-sections

for the reactions (I), and (II), at 960 iiev, and their results

agree with those of the Saclay group. However, in the report

of their results, there is no indication of any clear sepa-

ration of hydrogen and quasi-elastically produced events.

Furthermore, they did not use any k~own distributions in order

to estimate theie background and to obtain a reliable sample

p- -~ T--~-mom PPOPOMWWI'L-.~

_i~_ __ __ _F

of charge exchange events. Hence, their experiment does

not necessarily support the Saclay result.

Chretien et a2l , give the following estimate to the ratio

of thelproduction cross-section to that of charge exchange:

TirUsing this value and our charge exchange cross-section of

(4.2±0.4)mb. we expect an oproduction cross-section of

(0 .1 t 0± . 6),

If we assume our residual events with opening angles greater

than 90 to be due to t(decays ( the effective cross-section

due the neutral decays of A 's is4o.1 mb.) then our value of

(0.6t0.2)mb. is consistent with the value deduced.

C. FORWARD SCATTERING -30

Using the values obtained by Cronin for the determina-

tion of the forward scattering differential cross-section

for charge exchange, we find the predicted value for to be:

(0* - (!= 0.1) Mb/ fz

We find from our angular distribution the value:

These values are in substantial a6reement.

D. D 5/2 - F 5/2 INT'1ERFERECE -

With the results of our differential cross-section, we

are able to determine the partial waves involved at 900 -ev.

If we use the 5th order fit to the angular distribution ,

and take a6 to be 0, thenthe following is true:

6 c' 11

.- __ OMMI-

termand if we take the largest in a3 , assuming all other terms

negligible, we get:

0-3 -1 Io Re. A s/ Fa is then found to be equal toaa5 in magnitude, but negative

in sign. This is indeed true of our resulte - we find a large

value for a5 (5.61.2)mb/st and an equally large but negative

value for a 3 ( -5.0kO.9)mb/st. Thus, indications are that the

F 7/2 amplitude is 0 or very small and that the D 5/2 - F 5/2

interference predominates.

There may be a question as to why the 6th order fit is

not used. By including the 6th order term the )2 probability

does not change appreciably and this additional 6th order

term enters with a very large error. We therefore assume that

it is not needed or is at most very small.

E. CHARGE INDEPENDENCE t

If charge independence is asBumed to hold true in

pion-nucleon interactions, the following relationship be-

tween the various elastic cross-sections -

-= rJr4 F - T "-' emust be satisfied:R - + __' I I

Using the following values Por the various cross-

sections, T ( I . .o -. O.4) mb

" -(ag.o ± .o),,,6

r 4. ? *- -) )-. llhi -xp-l4MetWe find RS(0.73A0.12) which satisfies the inequality re-

quired by the charge independence hypothesis.

_~ __ __I__ I~r_ _ _IICa ~ II_

F. ISOTOPIC-SPIN ASSIGNIwENT -

Using our preliminary results, it was suggested by33

Dalitz that the isotopic-spin associated with the D 5/2

and F 5/2 wave amplitudes are both in the T=- state. The

argument for this iso-spin assignment which depends on our

final results is reproduced b low.

Assuming charge in dependence, it can be shown that:

The experimental values for the various cross-sections are:

+ (S. I. )x + 11. Os 1.o)xt mb/tfrom F. Grard, et alA " P 0"$'() . t (.4L 7 . .o 43. ),e -(5.o .)X3-(. , .Sr)X + L S(m.s p L o)d /,from this experiment

- ( -+P T-) (.F)**.-o +)(.,o* .tI)K + (.,,:t .,g

from F.3rard, et a134

Therefore:

* + Q . .%) x + C- (.t x ..') .'r X 0 a x. , .

If we assume a pure D 5/2 - F5/2 interference ( all

other amplitudes equal to 0) then:

Keeping in mind the assumption made (pure D 5/2 - F 5/2

interference ), this seems to fit the Cata quite well. The

experimental(+ p) differential cross-sectiondoes not even

-- ---------- ----- _r-~---l- -..;r-;-~i-9--UI~B~ i -~t a

require a 4th order cose.@ term. This indicated that there

is no strong D 5/2, T3/2 contribution. Hence, we can con-

clude that the interfering D 5/2 - F 5/2 amplitudes are both

in the T@;- isotopic-spin state.

" .~-. ....".~~i ."-.~rrJ~~ .~~.1- ..~~.----. ,--IIC~,,.,,,~,~,~,., na----l--?--- - - -- -- --- ------ ~*-t~ X p~ r - X Il 3~BEli*T~iil~~---3--j~--~--~ ll~P-

TABLE II-1

NUMBER OF VARIOUS GAMMA-RAY EVENTS OBSERVED

TARGET REGION

0-5

144

'3y

15

1Y

5-10

113

27

1

10-15

76

19

8

N2a

0-15

331

81

27

2

125

L u- -r- __ _fllrr*~ilrscarn*( ~rCCII?~~ - -- ~ ~r

TABLE III-1

CONVERSION PROBABILITIES OF GAMMA RAYS

FROM Ir . 27 and 3v0 DECAYS

TARGET REGION

0-5 5-10 10-15

.1349+.0040

.2016+.0050

.0928+,0032

.1190+.0037

.0520±.0023

.3896+ .0074

.0836+.0030

.0922+.0032

.0330+.o0018

.3639+.0071

.0883+,0031

.0637+.0026

.0189+.o014

.2959±.0062

0-15

.1741+.0027

.0882+.0018

.0916+,0018

.0346+.0011

.3498+ .0040

0191+,0O1'+

o0386+.0020

o0433+.0021

.0257+.0016

.006+ 000i

.6043+.0099

37

P 2y(1)

P2y(2r)

P 3(2r)

P (2r)P3y(2r)

+9s

P 2y(3i)

P3(3r)

P y(37r)

P (3r)

P (3ii)

p 2 (37r)

---- -- . -- UPI~---I i-- --- -V-~ ~ ~i iC lb~

-- -

----

.18 7+.0 8

TABLE 111-2

CORRECTION FACTORS

FOR

LEGENDRE-POLYNOMIAL COEFFIC IENTS

B0 B1 B2 B3 B6 B.7

0.9700 0.8433 0.8323 0.8110 0.7802 0.7414 0.6964 0.6470 0.5953

0.9715 0.8522 0.8412 0.8197 0.7A87 0.7498 0.7046 0.6551 0.6034

0.9735 0.8638 0.8528 0.8312 0.8002 0.7612 0.7159 0.6665 0.6148

0.9755 0.8753 0.8642 0.8427 0,8117 0,7728 0.7277 0.6785 0.6271

019775 0.8865 0.8755 0.8541 0.8234 0,7848 0.7401 0.6913 0.6404

0.9795 0.8975 0.8867 0.8656 0.8352 0.7972 0.7531 0.7049 0.6548

fr= 0.9735 for this experiment.

~---~~-- - --- - -- I'Ii-

- I I I I I I L II a a re4

TABLE 111-3

BISECTOR EFFECIENCIES

ISO BI 1 BI 2COS 0-5 5-10 10-1 o 10-1 0-5 5-10 10-15

S U 20 2 19 02 14 01 21 01 19 01

- 4 22 03 25 03 18 03 24 02 28 02 18 09 23 02 29 02 22 02

+80-70 35 04 32 04 25 03 31 04 29 04 21 04 28 03 30 03 20 02

+70-60 32 03 25 03 27 03 25 04 24 04 25 os 35 04 25 03 21 os

+860-50 35 04 24 03 25 03 38 S0 24 04 22 08 31 04 25 04 24 04

+50-40 34 04 28 03 25 03 35 05 23 04 24 06 43 05 27 04 28 04

+40-30 33 04 24 03 25 03 28 04 30 04 28 08 35 05 30 04 28 04

+30-20 35 04 28 03 31 03 33 05 27 04 27 07 37 05 30 04 24 04

+20-10 32 04 29 03 22 03 31 05 21 04 31 07 31 05 24 04 34 05

+L0--00 33 04 28 03 25 03 28 05 23 04 27 07 31 05 33 08 31 08

-00-10 33 04 28 03 29 04 39 08 24 05 29 08 31 07 28 06 29 08

10-20 31 04 28 03 25 03 32 08 28 8 :25 07 35 07 28 08 26 08,,,L , ,, , , , l;, 33 08 27.. 07,7,0

-20-30

~30-40

-40-50

-50-60

-80-70

-70-80-80-90-90-10

.34 0821 0422 0516 0225 03

27 03 25 03 14 02 30 04 21 04 18 05 24 04 21 04 15 03

24 03 28 03 13 02 32 04 28 04 15 03 28 03 25 03 14 02

25 03 23 03 09 02 23 03 21 02 11 02 23 03 20 02 09 01

24 03 19 03 04 01 39 08 21 02 04 01 22 02 18 02 07 01

17 02 14 02 03 01 22 02 14 02 04 01 22 02 12 02 02 01

13 02 09 02 09 005 17 02 07 01 004 004 18 02 09 01 004 003

0 08 02 02 01 05 02 02 01 10 03 03 02

23 03

ALL EFFECIENCIES WITHBE MULTIPLIED BY iO-2

ALL EFFECIENCIES WITHBE MULTIPLIED BY 10-3

TWO DIGITS SHOULD

THREE DIGITS SHOULD

ALL COSINE VALUES SHOULD BE MULTIPLIEDBY 10-2

II I -.. I ~" _ Trl~ r 'I

x'-~----; -~~

33 08 27 07 17 04

TABLE III.+-r ANGULAR DISTRIBUTION

LEGENDRE SERIES COEFFICIENTS

A0 Al1 A2 A3 A6 .

.32+.o04 ..05+.09 .43+.11 .09+.1O -.08+.12

5 .38.04 .05+.09 .49+.11 ;46+,13 -.154.13 .71+.15

6 .39±.04 .02+_.09 .48+.11 .45+.13 -26+.16 .75±.15 -.19+.18

0 ANGULAR DISTRIBUTION

COSINE SERIES COEFFICIENTS

L a0 a1 2 a3 4 a 5 a6

5 .08+.03 .69+.47 1.30+_.43 -5.03+.92 -. 66+.55 5.56+_1.20

6 .11+.03 o74+21 .44+.90 -5.40+1.21 2.65±3.16 5.88+1.23 2.79+_2.63

I --- -II

--- i .E"-..~' .,...~~~'~-"o .--. IY$..b"r~3"C"~-~Vi~h~b~~i~T~~ ZD1FBUI~LPOP LBP a, ~_C sirnrrb~l~l

REFEI ENCES

1. H.C. Burrows, D.O. Caldwell, D.H. Frisch, D.A. Hill,

D.M. Ritson, R.A. Schluter, and M.A. Wahlig, Phys. Rev.

Letters 2, 119 (1959)

2. J.C. Brisson, J Detoeuf, P.Falk-Vairant, G. Valladas,

L. Van Rossum,.and L.C.L. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Letters 3, 561

(1959)

3. J.C. Brisson, J. Detoeuf, P. Falk-Vairant, L. Van Rossum,

and G. Valladas, Nuovo Cimento 19, 210 (1961)

4. T. J. Devlin, B.C. 'arish, W.N. Hess, V. Perez-ilvendez,and:.

J. Solomon, Phys. Rev. Letters 4, 242, (1960).

5. R.R. Crittenden, J.H. Scandrett, W.D. Shephard, W.D. Walker,

Phys. Rev. Letters 2, 121 (1959.

6. J.C. Brisson, P.Falk-Vairant, J.P. verlo, L.Sondereger,

R. Turlay, and G. Valladas, Aix-En-Provence Int. Conf. on

Elementary Particles 1, 45 (1961).

Also R.Turlay, Thesis, University of Paris (1962)(unpublished).

7. R.F. Peierls, Phys. Rev. Letters 1, 174 (1958).

8. P.C. Stein, Phys. Rev. Letters 2, 473 (1959).

9. R.F. P&ierls, Phys. Rev. 118, 325 (1960).

10. B.J. Moyer, Rev. kod. Physics 33, 567(1961)

11. B.C. Maglic, B.T. Feld, and C.A. Diffey, Phys. Rev.123,

1444 (1961).

12. T.F. Kycia, and K.F. Riley, Phys. Rev. Letters 10, 266 (1963).

13. A. Weinberg, A.Brenner, and K. Strauch ,Phys. Rev. Letters

8, 70 (1962).

14. ib. Chretien, D.R. Firth, R.K.Yamamotd, I.A. Pless, and

L. Rosenson, Proc. of 1962 Instr. Conf. at CERN, Geneva

(To be published)-41-

SMORN

-42 -

i3

References con't.

15. To be published in The Review of Sciertific Instruments.

16. Lawrence Rosenson, 1960 Int. Conf. on Instrumentation

for High-Energy Physics, Berkeley, 135 (1960)

17. J. Szymanski, Thesis, Harvard U. (1963) (unpublished).

18. J. Averell, Thesis, Harvard U. (1963) (unpublished).

19. H.A. Bethe, and W. Heitler, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 146, 83(1934).

20. R4 E. Lanou, Jr. 3rown Univ., High £nergy Group, Internal

Report #103 (1962) (unpublished).

21. LGP-30 program for particle trajectories, written by J.

Sanford, and J. Sandweiss, Yale U.

23. F. Bulos, R.E. Lanou, Jr., I.A. Pless, and L.Rosenson,

Bull. A.P.S. 6, 528, ( 1961).

24. These projectors were built by the Brown University group,

but originally designed at Yale U.

25. IBM 704 program written by M. Chretien, Brandeis U.,

modified for IIBi, 7090 use by A. Brenner, Harvard U.

26. IBM 7090 program written by C. Bordner, Harvard ,U. -

27. IBM 7090 program written by A. BErenner, and E. Ronat,

Harvard University.

26. iM. Derrick, J.G. Fetrovich, T.H. Fields, J. Deahl, Proc.

1960 Ann. Intern. Conf. on High Energy Physics at Rochester,

p. 32.

29. T. Chretien, F. 1Bulos, H.R. Crouch, Jr. , R., . Lanou,Jr.,

J.T. Miassimo, A.M. Shapiro, J.A. Averell, C.A. Bordner, Jr.,

A.E. Brenner, D.R. Firth, Ii.E. Law, B.Nelson, I.A. Pless,

L. Rosenson, G.A. Salandin, R. K. Yamamoto, L. Guerriero,

and F. ialdner, Phys. Rev. Letters 9, 127 (1962).

30. J.W. Cronin, Phys. Rev. 118, 824 (1960)

31. H. Foelsche, E.C. Fowler, H.L. Kraybill, J.R. Sanford,

and D. Stonehill, Poc. of 1962 Int. Conf. High Energy

Physics. at CERN, 36 (1962).

32. P. Falk-Vairant, and G. Valladas, Proc. Ann. Rochester

Conf. High Energy Phys. 10 (1960).

33. R.H. Dalitz, private communication.

34. F. Grard, G.R. Iviacleod, L. kontanet, M.Cresti, R. Barlouaud,

C. Choquet, J.M. Gaillard, J.Heughbaert, A. Leveque, P.

Lehmann, J. Meyer, D. Revel, Aix-En- Provence Int. Conf,

on Elementary Particles 1, 37 (1961).

-43-

- -- ~.-----.. -. ---. ~ . ~---C-~--------^~--*~.I*~-oil I loll *-Mls*RMIZMRRMff

Referencee con't.

Expansion Head

Target Reservoir

4 7T - Beam

Beam Finger15" Chamber

BUBBLE CHAMBER WITH INTERNAL HYDROGEN TARGET(BEAM FINGER)

Figure I-I

X(E) CM.

~___~ ____ ~_

Target --- 204

205

2(

Horiz. Bend (16*0)

Horiz. Bend (16) -

Horiz. Bend (160)

209

Quad. (h.f.

Quad. (v.f.)

Horiz. Bend (290)

Quad. (v. f.)

,----Qud. (h. f. )

207

208

2--- Slit

209

~' Vert. Bend

210

Vert. Bend

Bubble Chamber

Figure I - 3

33x10

32x10

I xlO

Y (cm)

47

N44

36

28

20

12

Target Wall

4-

3 2 1 0

Z (cm)

Figure I- 4 b

48

_ ____ __ I_

Camera

/

Fi ducial Volume

FIDUCIAL VOLUME FOR BUBBLE CHAMBER

Figure I- I49

---- '-E--I-L-

-Z ZI

S- /// // // 7

COORDINATE SYSTEM

Figure I[- 2

WWWWLP I 111 " 11 1 ON - - -

~v/ ~ ~

COMBINED (3+ 4)

OPENING ANGLE DISTRIBUTION

PROB.>X = 15%

- Data

--- Simulation Program

E Opening

Figure lI- I

IN X- COORD. OF

POINTS COMBINED

- Data

--- Simulation Program

(2+3+4) - SAMPLES

rlI

Ir I

I I PROB.> X = 44%

1II

-4 -10 -6 10

X (cm)

Figure f]I- l a

-18 14 18

Z CONVERSIONDISTRIBUTION

Y- COORD. OF " CONVERSION

POINTS COMBINED ( 2+3+4) ' SAMPLES

- Data

--- Simulation ProgramPROB.

>X' = 45%

Y (cm)

Fig re I - I b5,

*linLBrsU-~rynlLUi~ -~Ee~*~~ --xrr~-rr ~ -.- l..lr*

DISTRIBUTION IN

105

-- Data .

95- --- Simulation Program

85I

65

55-

45

I35 -j.J

25

15- r

5-

-12 -8 -4 0Z (cm)

Figure II- I c

30 40 50 60 708min. 8 =Opening

N (8)

10 20 80 90

I I -y-Y-LI-~-.I-LI~ .tLI..-L-11-I.~IL~I ~_ 1I.I LII.~I I ~.. I -~ ~" - -- ~~Y"~ ;-~"*~'^--~~~1l1iT*'I~'-~" ~*'L "^C-c~ '~ "" I'" I I

- I

Angle

Fig.M-3

OPENING ANGLEDIFFERENCE DISTRIBUTION

oop -sap I

I ~

30 40

Ib6pl -o&t --

120)-

80-

40 -

50 60

---

E

Fig. IE-4

RAW(OBSERVEDOPENING ANGLE

DATA) 2yDISTRIBUTION.

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

E Opening

0 Opening

Fig. I-5

58

0.0e

01

88-7r (deg.)

_ ~i~ __

N -

60

50

40

30

20

10-

' L

-1.0 -.8 -. 6 -. 4 -2 0Cos 8

Figure I- 7a

- - ----- - ---- ---- - - ----- -- - ~El

_ I-L~L~- I =-_ -. .........I

Cos.

"T*rr-lr Y"l~i ~- 1~'Cf v~ry~ir~7;~7~;~

_

FIG. 111-7C

CORRECTED OPENING ANGLE

BISECTOR DISTRIBUTION

( 10- 15)

1.0 .9 .8

COS e

20

~ahnrrml-nrs~)i~ll~a~*lllslB1~111 B~aBI~ rab*l*SRL~ll~aa.~c*ln* ltrr~-~,~~,~____~ ______~C~__~~__r_-~~-^- ~-~--rr~----~_- I-~--~-~-~I~~. IIIICI?-~---~.l-- ~_I___~ .~1 111_1~._11-__ ~1~_.- - I~

I ^

1.0

.. ..--.,..~I~

- ---- - *--~-

0

ott

oc

09

oL

09

o06

oor8[O1I

X ,di ~ s .8OId

6-III OLDu

0Cos. E

1.0

__C_~__ ~ ~_ I~ ~_~__ _ _ ~_~_~~I ~_ ~~__ __I_______ ~~1~1_ I_ ___ __ _ __~___~_~__ __~ _ ___~~~ _~~~_~ ___ _I_~ ____1_ I___~

_ I__ _ _I~ r__ll__l~__ ___ i;__